It might do in the long run - I will leave that for others to consider. In the short run (e.g. 10 years..), all this would have to be paid for. People are not happy at much higher taxes. If you have free veterinary care for example, then those that dont have pets would not benefit and many would be unhappy. Those that do have pets, would use it a lot mor ethan if they had to pay. If in doubt - take pet to vet... College educations. Those that go to college will earn more money. So why shouldnt they pay? Ther eare lots of pros and cons on that one. However in the short term your taxes would have to go up significantly, resulting in the loss of jobs etc. The internet. How much would it cost to give someone free internet service if they live out in the desert.... Here in the UK, we used to charge the same amount to put a telephone line in no matter wher eyou lived. Thats not so dififcult here where homes on the whole are fairly close together. Would be much harder in the US. We have towns now giving completely free wireless access. That once again is much easier when peopel dont live so far apart. (We dont have many advantages over the USA - so I have to enjoy the few we get).

Just to add to cambsman's answer and I'll only be dealing with the free internet part of your question: I think the public doesn't demand free internet from the government because they suspect the government would screw it up. The issue as I see it is that the government would be hesitant to try to offer for free, what commercial businesses (internet providers) are already making money from. But that's just my suspicion. In Alberta Canada, the government promised high speed internet to every town in the province (provinces are like states). What they didn't explain is that all they'd be doing is creating the backbone network to each town. They hooked up schools and libraries and government offices for free, but left it to the private sector to build, sell and administer the connection the rest of the way to peoples' homes. Unfortunately, in many towns, that was too expensive of a proposition for any company to risk implementing - so the result is, no high speed internet to many homes - at least, not via landline. Getting back to the question though, I think the public would get better results lobbying the lowest level of government possible to offer free internet. I read somewhere that some cities in the US have already begun this type of initiative. San Francisco, Philadelphia, and others have started. Here's an article about the opposition (in government) to such projects: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-06.htm

I, for one, don't want the government to offer those types of services. First, because it wouldn't really be free. It would raise taxes, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except that it would probably raise taxes by more that what I am currently paying for those services to a private company. Second, because, like Karl Plesz, the services would, if not TOTALLY screwed up, be less than the services offered by private companies. And third, because I like the option now that if my current (internet, or veterinary, or whatever) provider is unsatisfactory, I can switch to a different one.